It's Hard to Keep the Lid On - Part 4

As we have noted (several times), l'affaire Amarasekare keeps bubbling, even if no one in authority wants to discuss it despite its appearance in outside news outlets. From the Daily Bruin comes an editorial:

UCLA’s consistent refusal to explain the suspension of one of the most eminent ecologists of our time is yet another example of its lack of accountability. UCLA Professor Priyanga Amarasekare is a Guggenheim fellow and recipient of the Ecological Society of America’s Robert H. MacArthur Award. In July, however, she was suspended without pay on a nebulous set of charges and banned from furthering her scientific research, which focused principally on understanding the ecological effects of climate change. New internal emails and documents confirm that these harsh penalties came from the very top of the UCLA administration.

Amarasekare, who is of Sri Lankan descent, is one of the only two women of color who have tenure in UCLA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Under the terms of her one-year suspension, she was stripped of the ability to take care of her insect colony, access her lab, manage her grants and contact her students. Hundreds of scientists, many in ecology departments around the globe, have signed a petition to the UC Regents and UCLA’s chancellor to reinstate Amarasekare.

This isn’t the first time Amarasekare has clashed with the university. She developed a reputation for addressing tough topics and challenging department policies. Amarasekare has previously accused the institution of discrimination after being denied promotions that were granted to colleagues. In 2014, an independent review concluded that the department’s rejection of a promotion Amarasekare sought in 2013 was a product of prejudicial bias.

Faculty members and previous students speculate that the professor’s suspension may have been in retaliation for her vocal criticism of her department. The international scientific community, alongside all members of the UCLA community, deserves a full and immediate explanation of Amarasekare’s suspension.

There is only one person who can truly answer for this decision: Chancellor Gene Block...

marasekare allegedly violated confidentiality procedures about staffing decisions and judging the professional merit of other faculty members based on factors unrelated to professional performance. However, the committee recommended that the ecologist be given a letter of censure and placed on probation for five years for these infractions, with pay cuts only if the terms of the probation were broken. Instead, the penalties that the Chancellor’s Office issued for these offenses were much harsher than those recommended by the committee. Under the UC system’s policy of “shared governance,” the chancellor is given ultimate discretion over disciplining faculty accused of misconduct...

The disparity between the committee recommendation and the chancellor’s decision cannot go unexplained... 

Full editorial at https://dailybruin.com/2023/03/05/editorial-ucla-community-deserves-explanation-for-professor-amarasekares-suspension.

As we have noted, this case seems likely to end up in a courtroom setting if it isn't resolved. Putting it in the external legal system means depositions, testimony, and the unveiling of dirty laundry which could be avoided by some form of internal resolution. Stonewalling does not seem to be a route to internal resolution.